Obama looks pathetic and not the least bit presidential. No tie? Is her even taking this campaign seriously?

He was clearly discombobulated by the heckler. Watch the clip. What happened to Obama's wit? It failed him, and he flailed. If he were in touch with the election and with this crowd, he would have been able to come up with a response. He's lost the magic.

And nobody likes being lectured to! Wasn't Obama running against fear-mongering and divisiveness in 2008?

Maybe Obama ought to explain why he has approved the secrecy of the details of the AIG bailout??? The secret information is part of a regulatory filing that all public companies are required to report. And AIG is a tad more "public" than most "public" companies.

The reason why this is being kept secret is because the Obama administration doesn't want the public to know what companies were indirectly bailed out through the AIG bailout.

Think it over. A year ago just being yelled at in public by Catholic abortion protestors was a PR plus. Not anymore. Just being a woman stalked by a man candidate was a PR plus. Not anymore. The people have wised up and are not afraid of the SlanderMedia making the good guys appear as bad gus anymore. I give the credit for that seachange to the Rogue and her courage setting an example in how to stand up to Media powers. She is a leader!Scot Brown, and many more good men, are her followers.

I have not watched the speech yet and "judging" speeches is notoriously subjective, but I don't understand Ann's point:

"The personal touch turns chillingly impersonal."

Is it that Obama would not use Brown's name? Or the general tone of the speech?

Some of these comments are very good. The notion of a president pitting americans against one another is not good, but Obama gets a pass from the media on virtually everything. He also is so used to getting away with everything, he does not hesitate to engage in, or perhaps he does not even see, the inappropriate conduct.

Andrew Sullivan is going crazy trying to justify Martha Coakley. He admits she did some evil things as a proseuctor, but says Brown is even more evil. Why? No real explanation, other than him being a Republican. Other than he might--gasp--cut taxes.

In Andrew's mind republicans are not serious in their drive to cut taxes. Apparently being a conservative in Andrew Sullivan's mind is promoting a massive expansion of entitlements and more taxes. How is this conservative? It is a mystery!

And Andrew wonders why people think he is nuts.

But these quotes are priceless:

I live in Newton, Mass, an incredibly liberal city, and I see Brown signs all over the place. Last week before the shit really started to hit the fan, I was driving through Needham, Mass and I swear there was a Brown sign on every other lawn. I was stunned. To add insult to injury, I have a Coakley bumper sticker on my car and last week while in Wellesley, Mass I approached my car in a parking lot and I heard 2 electricians making fun of my sticker and of Martha. I could not believe it....the sticker had been on my car since October and all of the sudden I felt like I should take it off because people are ca-raaaazyyy!

I drove from Concord to Worcester today. We saw 6 or 7 Brown signs for every Coakley sign, maybe more. That's pretty consistent with what I've seen in metrowest in the last few days. She is NOT popular around here. And yes, I agree that she'll be ensconced for 20 years or more if she wins. She's the anointed one and we're all supposed to just fall in line. Oops.

By paying his staff as contractors instead of employees, Scott Brown avoids any responsibility to be a good employer and provide them health insurance. That alone should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of many voters. But by paying his staff as contractors, Brown has also managed to avoid his responsibility to pay their payroll taxes. Brown has pushed his tax obligation off on to his employees, which is not only selfish, it’s also probably a violation of federal law.

It’s no surprise that Brown evaded questions about paying his staff as contractors, directing people to speak to his attorneys. And it’s no surprise his attorneys wouldn’t comment on the issue, because Scott Brown is almost certainly in violation of federal tax laws.

@traditionalguy- I think it's much simpler: Support for the underdog and skeptical distrust of those in charge, especially when those in charge are so filled with hubris and corruption.

I think its much the same dynamic as 2008; only the sides are reversed. Obama and Co just haven't figured out that they are the new bosses yet. How pathetic it seems to hear them rehashing the outdated game plan.

MEMO TO OBAMA: You won. Although if you now want to go back and rerun 2008 all over again, I think much of America would be willing to revisit that decision.

I was not aware that Brown's campaign workers were forced into servitude. I though they chose to work there and the campaign chose to hire them, like the old days before we headed for a command economy run out of DC.

Chase said...Funny - I've been looking, but I can't seem to find any speeches form George W Bush after he became President where he encouraged and sought to pit any one group of Americans against another.

Good point.

Perhaps the trolls will find one or manufacture one, but it surely was not Bush's M.O.

Plus, since Dodd is retiring, the bankers do need another vote. He was so reliable for them and now he's going away.

Chase said..."Funny - I've been looking, but I can't seem to find any speeches form George W Bush after he became President where he encouraged and sought to pit any one group of Americans against another."

right.

opposed to anybody who disagreed being referred to as anti-american or a traitor.

By paying his staff as contractors instead of employees, Scott Brown avoids any responsibility to be a good employer and provide them health insurance. That alone should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of many voters. But by paying his staff as contractors, Brown has also managed to avoid his responsibility to pay their payroll taxes. Brown has pushed his tax obligation off on to his employees, which is not only selfish, it’s also probably a violation of federal law.

It’s no surprise that Brown evaded questions about paying his staff as contractors, directing people to speak to his attorneys. And it’s no surprise his attorneys wouldn’t comment on the issue, because Scott Brown is almost certainly in violation of federal tax laws.

Former President George W. Bush pushed back Sunday against criticism -- levied most prominently by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh -- that his successor, President Barack Obama, was somehow politicizing the disastrous earthquake in Haiti.

"I don't know if -- what they're talking about," Bush declared during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I've been briefed by the President about the response. And as I said in my opening comment, I appreciate the president's quick response to this disaster."

For Jeremy, this was in the GlobeBrown's campaign said most of his small staff are contractors who already had health insurance. Those who did not were paid more to allow them to purchase coverage under the Connector -- a system set up under Massachusetts' landmark health care reform

Republicans should note that while Brown has said he'd vote against the currently proposed plan, he voted for universal coverage under Romneycare. If he wins, in a few months the right will be complaining about him being a RINO like Snowe and Collins.

Dirty politicians (and the Democrats now in power are as dirty as they come) only love banks when they themselves are going there for a few years to snag their millions before returning to “public service.”

President Clinton's friend Franklin Raines: a few years at Fanny Mae and walked away with millions of dollars.

During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal involving inflated earnings. In 2006, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $90 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings ( initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as $6.3 billion.)

Clinton’s other friend Jamie Gorelick had no previous training nor experience in finance, but was appointed Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served alongside Raines.

Investigation by the OFHEO detailed in their official report on the accounting scandal in 2006 on page 66 that from 1998 to 2002 Gorelick received a total of $26,466,834 in income.

Obama’s chief of staff Rham Emmanuel Emanuel made $16.2 million in a two-and-a-half-year stint as a banker at Wasserstein Perella, according to Congressional disclosures.

This is how our dirty politicians get paid off for their usefulness - quick in-and-out jobs at the I-bank, and then back on the road as fierce independent-minded public servants.

the contractor comments are indeed interesting--I preferred to work as a contractor--maximized my personal freedom while allowing me to do a job which I thorougly enjoyed--health insurance wasnt a big deal to me for many reasons.

Scott Browns contractors are a non issue and even if they were would only appeal to union stiffs who will vote democratic anyway. A non issue, and will certainly not make an iota of difference in the MA election.

From the Times (the one which is not going to charge to look at content), a report of the race:

"Coakley’s opponent, Scott Brown, 50, is a lawyer who is also a lieutenant-colonel in the National Guard and has served in the state legislature since 1996. His claim to fame was winning America’s sexiest man contest when he was 22 and posing nude for the centrefold of Cosmopolitan magazine. The accompanying story said that Brown liked “slinky girls” and was not shy about taking his clothes off.

Last November Boston’s Suffolk University released a poll that showed Coakley 31 points ahead. When it released a second poll on Friday it gave Brown a four-point lead.

Coakley’s friends describe her as witty with an encyclopedic knowledge of Broadway musicals, but on television she appears stiff. Gail Collins, the New York Times columnist, compared her speaking style to “that of a prosecutor delivering a summation to the jury in civil court in a trial that involved, say, a dispute over widget tariffs”. Brown, by contrast, is not only photogenic but exudes easy charm, portraying himself as a self-made man who drives around in a pick-up truck.

On Friday he did a walk-about in Boston’s Little Italy, a Democrat stronghold. Asked how he felt about possibly winning the seat, he replied to loud cheers: “It’s not the Kennedys’ seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.”

[Homerun, Scott!! It's in the popular lexicon now]

A number of women had brought along their dogs. Donna, a dentist, had brought her fox terrier Razzie. “I always voted for Kennedy but this guy is refreshing,” she said. “Washington has forgotten the middle class and he’s the way we can stop it.”"

can't seem to find any speeches form George W Bush after he became President where he encouraged and sought to pit any one group of Americans against another.

•Obama demeans his Presidency and the Office by often pitting Americans against each other in his speeches (read the quote at the top of the post).

So how did Jeremy answer? Let's see:

opposed to anybody who disagreed being referred to as anti-american or a traitor.

•Hmmm . . . searched all of Bush's speeches since he became President and Jeremy's answer is: WRONG. Not once in any of Bush's speeches during his Presidency did he refer to any American as "anti-American" or "traitor".

rhhardin said... You earn more as a contractor. I always preferred it.

sure. You pay 1099 consultants a premium because:

- they cover their own SS, FICA, etc- they don't have job security, vacation, etc

These folks have a 100 day or less Job. Of course it's a temp job. likely much less than 100 days, cause Brown has been broke for the first 90 days of that 100.

as for IRS issues. I don't think there are any. You get issues if the consultants are long term and if they do the same things your regular staff do, but in this case, he has no regular staff and it sure isn't more than a few weeks work.

I would not be surprised if most of his staff aren't on LWOP from day jobs.

You're right Jeremy. It's not pretty when Joe Biden claims Barack Obama can get by because he's "one of the clean, articulate ones."

It was Harry Reid who called Obama a negro. I thoguht we'd reitred the N word as a society? Everywhere except the backrooms at DNC headquarters. He even acccused Obama of using Ebonics to fool black folk, then talking white to the Harvard crowd.

Maybe you should ask your fellow traveler Democrats whether they agree with you on the whole "racism is not pretty" angle.

I don't like the Not Sure percentages. Plus I don't know who these pollsters are. Also, I don't like big leads -- Scott Brown is still the huge underdog in this race. Let's keep it that way, so as not to get cocky or overoptimistic.

"I saw him kissing her neck," said Sharon Farrell, a lawyer sitting two tables away from Paterson and his mystery gal pal at the River Palm Terrace in Edgewater. "He was right on her neck, nudging, like back and forth.""

Well, at least she isn't a hooker. The black Hispanic lady works with him, apparently.

One fact cannot be escaped. Coakley has got to be the most stupid candidate to run since Joe Biden. It is hard to keep track of who said more dumb things.

Anyone who read about the Arinault and Winfield cases has all they need to never vote for her again. These were not errors in judgment. They were egregious, wantonly negligent, and reckless conduct. Too bad she could not be indicted.

I remember reading Sully's Goodbye to All That and thinking, that's right, Clinton would only invite continuation of the ridiculous partisanship we've lived with all of our adult lives. What we need is someone outside of all of that.

What retards we were. Clinton knew that the Republican leadership doesn't give a flying fuck about the United States of America.

There was a leak that Joe Lieberman was "close to endorsing" Scott Brown today, Sunday. Word from The Hill says there is absolutely no plan by the Senator's office to release an endorsement ahead of Tuesday's election.

Sounds to me like the Dems were trying to play a little game there, by aligning him with the unpopular Lieberman.

Drill SGT - Excellent series of posts! You are on fire today!=================Jeremy said... By paying his staff as contractors instead of employees, Scott Brown avoids any responsibility to be a good employer and provide them health insurance. That alone should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of many voters.

Coakley doesn't have to worry. Most of her workers are government employees, flunkies dispatched from law firms and various prosecutors offices she is tight with, professional machine apparachniks with "no-show" jobs in Mass, and union employees. All who already have cushy healthcare benefits.

=====================I know this, Obama posed as a bipartisan uniter and lied his ass off about that. He has chosen the path of Bush when Bush had peak power - demonize the opposition and cram what he wants down the throats of them. And Obama excels in working to intimidate moderates with thug-like threats from Pelosi and Reid serving as his proxies for hard-left agenda.

So much for "no Red or Blue America", transparancy, and his numerous other lies.

The worm soon turned on Dubya and his corporate cronies and neocons - and from 2003 -2008 the opposition made him bleed for his 2002 excesses.Methinks the "2nd Brownie" is gonna be wishing Hillary was elected and he could have just been the SCOTUS Justice he thought he deserved now, vs. when his 8 years is up.

So long as the economy, and most importantly, jobs are down, there is a chance he could be toxic to voters. He desperately needs something, some win, to turn around the ship. HCR ain't it, but I don't know what is.

vbspurs - actually president obama's polling is UP...and even better than king ronnie at this stage of his tenure.

but of course, you and the rst of the morons here would never know that.

PRECEDENTS – To a large extent Obama’s treading the predicted path for a president presidingover 10 percent unemployment.

His course in approval almost precisely matches that of the lastpresident to take office in the tempest of a recession, Ronald Reagan, who went from 68 percentjob approval shortly after he took office to 52 percent at the one-year mark.

His course in approval almost precisely matches that of the lastpresident to take office in the tempest of a recession, Ronald Reagan, who went from 68 percentjob approval shortly after he took office to 52 percent at the one-year mark.

Actual Gallup polling (larger sample than all other polling organizations):

Brown has already won. If by some "miracle" Coakley ends up in the Senate, it will be a victory for conservative at least at wonderful, because it will rally the right and like-minded independents who still want the change Obama promised, but of which he clearly is not the agent. Or it will be seen as stolen which will do the same even more powerfully.

In addition as a self employed person, their insurance premiums are a 100% deduction for themselves and their dependents INSTEAD of being taxed by the government for having a Cadillac plan, they can choose the coverage that they want.

Awesome clarification, DBQ. Democrats are all about the scare facts, "he doesn't give his employees health insurance!!", because it makes him sound bad.

I'm hoping you guys will be here on Tuesday, live-blogging the Mass returns. Win or lose, it's going to be HUGE.

A rehash of the old, wonderful Althouse threads, where 300 posts was a mere warmup, 400 posts meant we were clearing our collective throats, 500 meant we just started paying attention, and 600 posts were the beginning of the real fun!

(polifact) First, we should note that Rove was guilty of rhetorical excess when he said that Obama's numbers are the worst of "any president" at this point. Gallup's historical data -- the longest-running of the major polling firms -- dates back to Harry Truman, who was the first president whose entire tenure was polled in a fashion that modern experts would consider scientific. So Rove should have argued that Obama's numbers were the worst of any post-World War II president at this point in his term.

Second, Rove misspoke when he referred to measuring Obama's ratings at the end of his first year. By definition, those numbers won't be available until late January. But in assessing his statement, we've sidestepped that problem by asking Gallup to provide us the approval ratings for December of the first year in office of the postwar presidents, so that the ratings for each can be compared more directly with the figures we have for Obama.

Third, not all postwar presidents came to office equally. Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes and Bill Clinton were all elected, so their presidencies all started at the usual time of the year. By contrast, Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford assumed office after the death or resignation of their predecessor. Johnson's approval ratings roughly a year after taking office were around 70 percent, while Truman and Ford were both around 40 percent at that point in their tenure -- a level lower than Obama's today. But because the comparison isn't exact, independent analysts advised us to exclude Truman, Johnson and Ford from our analysis.

So, here are Gallup's December approval and disapproval ratings for all elected presidents since World War II. (For Clinton and George W. Bush, Gallup polled on presidential approval twice a month rather than once a month as previously, so the numbers below reflect an average of the two December scores for those presidents.)

So many visit the blog here and Jeremy seeks to slash and burn, but instead of that in this post, we are showing him up as an actual undeniable loser on the facts, without sinking into just ad hominem.

It's not that Jeremy is justa drive-by troll - We've clearly got him on the actual goods, this time, in front of every visitor who read s even a small amount on this post.

Though you'd possibly appreciate it the schooling of someone who calls you "a sick fuck"

Mmm. I don't like this overconfidence on Brown winning, guys. Not one bit.

Yep. They can't get cocky and slack off. You never give up until your opponent is compeletly decimated, cut into little pieces and burned to keep them from coming back, zombie like, from the grave to vote again

DBQ, it's a legal holiday in Mass tomorrow (it's one here, too, but that means no Post or banks are open -- most people still have to work). I hope those who are off take the time to campaign for Brown tomorrow.

Win or lose, it is good news for the people in general because suddenly, they are engaged in the process.

Someone earlier said, that Obama has awakened a sleeping giant. I think that that is true. People are no longer going to be complacent and let it be business as usual. Scott Brown, is a result of this process.

"Grindr", the iPhone gay hook-up app (that has to pretend not to be a gay hook-up app to remain in Apple's good graces) sent a pop-up message when opened today begging users to "support Martha Coakley". Yeah, that's what I want to think about when I'm in the mood to trawl for gay sex: Martha Coakley.

Again, the repulsive Democrat assumption that gay votes are their bought-and-paid-for birthright, and that we'll all go take a cold shower and rush out to help the most cynically phony candidate since... Barack Obama.

I love you all, and I rarely engage Jeremy and other trolls, but there are two many visitors here (office workers I know peeked into this blog for the first time and were turned off by Jeremy's unanswered-with-facts presence on the blog.

So . . . this time, Jeremy was shown to be the loose with the facts, can't back up anything he says type of commenter by someone who didn't have to just call names back and forth, but actually showed that he is through facts a political and opinion loser.

And with that, every real commenter here wins. (Unless you're mad that someone actually could prove him wrong factually, rather than just ignoring him).

Imagine that you were a trolling, angry leftist at Althouse during the run-up to the 2008 presidential election.

Now, try to comprehend your angry trolliness as your world is falling apart and a Republican is taking a Senate seat in Massachusetts that about a month ago belonged to the last of the relevant Kennedys.

Bomber pilots often referred to the type of plane they flew merely by the number. A 24 is a B-24, in this case, of the 15th Air Force and they really got socked over Rumania in what was supposed to be a milk run, hence the metaphor.

ChaseWTF are you going on about? First you link to a gallup poll on TPM dated Dec 8th, that had Obama at 47%. Then Jeremy posts the latest gallup showing Obama at 53%. Then you claim it was dishonest of Jeremy only using gallup!

It really does not matter if Brown wins - Coakley's repulsive record and campaign as a symbol of the Democratic party is what matters. Then the cherry on top is the President being dumb enough, or desperate enough, to join it. A Brown win will be anti-climactic.

Jeremy, I admire your perseverance. You've been thoroughly called out and trounced, and yet you keep showing your face in this thread. Ever heard of the term "lost cause?" If not, you and Martha are about to be forcibly familiarized with it.

"Coakley's repulsive record and campaign as a symbol of the Democratic party is what matters."

oh, right.

what a crock."

That's been the big story all week: how bad SHE is, not how great Brown is. Kennedy's seat is not gonna be lost because Brown is some genius, but because Dems are doomed and this is just the first casualty. The smart money would switch sides now, but your principles are too strong. Good for you.

Oh, and Jeremy, please don't interpret my not bothering replying to your upcoming posts as a sign of disinterest. I'm just going to bed. By all means, continue to beclown yourself before a national audience to your little heart's content.

Coakley's repulsive record and campaign as a symbol of the Democratic party is what matters.

Though I have admired Rabinowitz's columns in the WSJ on the Amirault case, and Romney's lack of attention to a pardon during his term as governor was my primary complaint about him last year, I initially thought it was a bit of chutzpah of negative campaigning that she should have brought up Coakley and the Amiraults in the WSJ recently until I read that the first thing Coakley did when she found she really, yes maybe really, needed to campaign for the Senate seat in the general election was to air an advertisement extolling her fighting for women and children's rights using the Amirault case(s)! This when the evidence was overwhelming she had historically been hewing to this position solely for personal political benefit despite the blatant disregard for justice and cruel misuse of the defendants.

I wasn't aware you were an historian. Technically, Ploesti is more Southern than Eastern in its import, but what the hey, if it makes you happy, I live to swerve.

When the Blonde talks to her friends at work about the place we've seen by car, she always does five minutes on how I regale her with all sorts of historical minutiae regarding the places through which we're driving. I make it interesting, she says; although it's tough to keep talking on those long road trips. Meade is lucky that way, Ann always has her camera for entertainment.

Bankers don't need more votes because they, especially Goldman Sachs (Geitner's, and Paulson's firm) have already owned the damned federal govt. They screwed up, we paid them, they paid out the loots as record bonuses. Who, may I ask, let that happen? He has the audacity to mention them.

By paying his staff as contractors instead of employees, Scott Brown avoids any responsibility to be a good employer and provide them health insurance. That alone should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of many voters.

Is this the best Democratic spin on this race available today? Wow. The only word for it is limp.

What's on the table in this election?

-- The future of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate that has been Obama's guarantee of his legislative agenda's success.

--Possibly, the fate of the health care bill -- at minimum it forces the Democrats to do some very unsavory things in public to save it.

--The first Democrat to lose election for this senate seat since 1948.

--An array of issues ranging from unemployment to homeland security, from cap-and-trade to aid for Haiti.

--The possible election of a senator who joined in the horrific injustices heaped upon the Amirault family long after it was clear they were completely innocent.

But Jeremy, getting his cues from some netroots blogger or another, is trying to push the employment contracts of Scott Brown's campaign staff as not just one issue, but a disqualifying issue. But Coakley's behavior in the Amirault matter is not disqualifying, not even mentioned much less defended or explained.

Let's see...a handful of employees working on a short-term project have to fund their own benefits for that brief period...vs. a man potentially spending the rest of his life in prison for a crime he didn't do, and that the candidate as prosecutors knew he didn't do.

For Pete's sake Jeremy, you should turn in your party affiliation card. Is this plus a bunch childish insults is the best you can do? Profoundly pathetic.

"By paying his staff as contractors instead of employees, Scott Brown avoids any responsibility to be a good employer and provide them health insurance. That alone should be enough to disqualify him in the minds of many voters."

I thought Brown's pretty much widely known to support RomneyCare in MA. Thus, the state-run insurance takes the load as opposed to that antiquated system of employer-provided insurance.

In other words, where's the fucking fire, other than in your trousers?

But, for the first time since I was 12, I find myself reluctant to embrace that party label. I don't know if there's any hope any more of the party's a return to Clinton-era political sanity. Things do change, and sometimes quickly, but I don't see the big rethink the Dems have needed since 2001 happening under the current regime.

Jeremy, thank you for playing, but Bush NEVER said people who disagreed with him were "traitors" or "unamerican." The people who said "interpreted" (projected) his WH as saying that are the ones who have played the "if you disagree with Obama you're antiamerican, or a traitor or a racist" card for a solid year. That would be the dems and the press.

"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."

This Senate seat was held warm for Ted decades ago, when he was parachuted in and stayed there for ever. Part of the revolt is based on the fact that Coakley seems to be the ultimate Kennedy clan crony, and was also plopped in by a tiny number of primary voters, and seems to imbue the arrogance of the Democratic party elite. Most voters know that she could lord it over them for decades. But they'll almost certainly be rid of Brown in a few years.

David said... Chase said..."Funny - I've been looking, but I can't seem to find any speeches form George W Bush after he became President where he encouraged and sought to pit any one group of Americans against another.Perhaps the trolls will find one or manufacture one, but it surely was not Bush's M.O."

well assholes. when Mr. Bush held townhall meetings or gave speeches and only those who swore an oath that they were true blue republicans were admitted and anyone who though that Bush was the feckless idiot that he seemed to be, were excluded, don't you think in your little peabrains that he was excluding????

I used to enjoy this blog, because the comment threads were fun to read (and occasionally contribute to). Now it's been infected with Jeremy, and the nasty viciousness of the canned left-wing insult generator that he brings along. It's no fun walking down a sidewalk that has a pile every ten steps or so.

Don't bet against the machine! If a 4-1 Democratic majority aren't enough, there are lots of ways to put a "finger on the scale" in Mass.

Obama Plunges Into Mass. Race (WSJ)

Republican strategists said the race remains too close to call. Democrats suggested overnight polls tracking voter sentiment have shown a shift back to Ms. Coakley.

On Sunday the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which closely follows national campaigns, said the Massachusetts race remains "very much of a toss up," with Mr. Brown "holding onto a very narrow, single-digit lead."

The report added, "Given the vagaries of voter turnout, particularly in lower participation level special elections, this race could still go either way, but we put a finger on the scale for Brown."

Bankers don't need another vote in the United States Senate. They've got plenty. Where's yours?"

You know, I've been thinking about that. WHERE IS MY VOTE in the Senate or the House.

The Unions have their lobbyists. They even get to sleep in the White House and have slumber parties with the President. Wall Street has their professional lobbyists. The Pharmacists. The Doctors. The God Damned Street Sweepers. They ALL have a voice to get their vote in Congress.

Who is my lobbyist? WHERE IS MY VOTE. Oh......wait.....the Senator or Representative is SUPPOSED to be my vote, be MY lobbyist.

Just a reminder to those who are triple mad at bankers: if the people who borrowed money paid it back on time and on schedule there would have been no credit crisis, no economic meltdown, no unwinding of swaps, no problem. It is convenient to get puffed up and red faced angry at the mean old fat cat bankers, but the people who borrowed the money stopped meeting their obligations. Their bad. Sorry, but that is the way the world works.